In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.
…
Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.
But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC’s new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama, Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further “increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st century” is to be expected. On the other hand, the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.
========================================================
Sunshine hours writes of another about-face from the IPCC:
Everytime I argue with members of the AGW Cult they claim we are in the midst of a “great extinction”. I ask them to name 10 species. When they can’t name any, I ask for 5. They usually come up with one animal that has been hunted to extinction (which is horrible, but not AGW)
Old Prediction:
“Global warming is said to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been predicting for years.”
New Confession:
“ IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct thus far.”
Polar Bears Are Doing Fine:
“At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet even the icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.”
Models Suck at predicting extinctions:
“”There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk accurately,” the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to concern that “forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be overestimated.””
=============================================================
As Willis has said: Where are the corpses?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I remember saying that the extinction of species due to CAGW was a total pile of shite way back then. Why am I, who doesn’t have a penny to gain in the scam, correct yet again?
Reality DROPS, right Al?
I had to check twice, because my first thought was ‘The Onion’. ho ho
“Oops! Our bad. We can’t give back your money. We spent it. Send more so we can fix the problems we caused.”
Sigh… I can’t even muster a primal scream any more.
If a couple of degrees planet wide can cause so many species to become extinct, it is a wonder any life exists on this planet at all
Not so fast. Didn’t global warming make the Dodo and Passenger Pigeon extinct? Global warming is so flexible, given that it even produces record-breaking cold and snowy seasons, who is to say it can’t go back to the past and make species extinct. Hey, how about the Woolly Mammoth, the sabre-toothed cats, and the Aurochs, etc.
Looks to me lke the only species in immediate danger is the Whooping Crane – but from wind turbines designed to fight global warming. Ironic that global warming fears and actions are what is leading to the only species extinctions.
200 % of nothing is nothing.
I thought this was somewhat settled already, in 2011 (another model):
The most widely used methods for calculating species extinction rates are “fundamentally flawed” and overestimate extinction rates by as much as 160 percent, life scientists report May 19 in the journal Nature.
However, while the problem of species extinction caused by habitat loss is not as dire as many conservationists and scientists had believed, the global extinction crisis is real, says Stephen Hubbell, a distinguished professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and co-author of the Nature paper.
“The methods currently in use to estimate extinction rates are erroneous, but we are losing habitat faster than at any time over the last 65 million years,” said Hubbell, a tropical forest ecologist and a senior staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. “The good news is that we are not in quite as serious trouble right now as people had thought, but that is no reason for complacency. I don’t want this research to be misconstrued as saying we don’t have anything to worry about when nothing is further from the truth.”
Because there are very few ways of directly estimating extinction rates, scientists and conservationists have used an indirect method called a “species-area relationship.” This method starts with the number of species found in a given area and then estimates how the number of species grows as the area expands. Using that information, scientists and conservationists have reversed the calculations and attempted to estimate how many fewer species will remain when the amount of land decreases due to habitat loss.
“There is a forward version when we add species and a backward version when we lose species,” Hubbell said. “In the Nature paper, we show that this surrogate measure is fundamentally flawed. The species-area curve has been around for more than a century, but you can’t just turn it around to calculate how many species should be left when the area is reduced; the area you need to sample to first locate a species is always less than the area you have to sample to eliminate the last member of the species.
“The overestimates can be very substantial. The way people have defined ‘extinction debt’ (species that face certain extinction) by running the species-area curve backwards is incorrect, but we are not saying an extinction debt does not exist.”
How confident is Hubbell in the findings, which he made with ecologist and lead author Fangliang He, a professor at China’s Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou and at Canada’s University of Alberta?
“100 percent,” he said. “The mathematical proof is in our paper.”
Wanted: Climate Scientists to write technical reports for the IPCC on Global Warming.
Qualifications: Must be able to walk backward.
‘no evidence climate change has led to even a single species becoming extinct’
I strongly disagree with this. I am certain that global warming led to the ultimate extinction of both mastodons and wooly mammoths.
Correct – not a single AGW nut went extent.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
All that scary talk and it was all in their imagination.
I should have made clearer in my previous post that my understanding was “Global Warming = Loss of Habitat”. (It is true however that land use changes also lead to loss of habitat.)
Honesty from the IPCC?
Heh.
It’s only a draft version. They’ll fix it.
“… for tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.”
Regarding honesty of the IPCC and of those many who feed from the same trough:
Just heard on NPR this afternoon a news piece about free course offering – massive open online course (MOOC)- taught by Professor Richard Alley. He was presented by NPR as Nobel Prize winner and when I went to check here what is there :
http://faces.psu.edu/faces/dr-richard-alley/
This is the same “prize” as his colleague, Dr. Mann, received in 2007 “together” with IPCC and Al Gore.
So remind me again why people put much stock in the work of Arrhenius?
So the IPCC admits no evidenc of extinctions caused by man-made climate change. Past climate change was very kind to species too.
Here is an Essay in Nature
Abound the only things that could become extinct if all the AGW alarmists get their way is freedom and the middle class!
Why?
Environmentalists are failing in their duties. They have decided to become lazy, blame co2 and scream. Meanwhile the environment suffers while being helped somewhat by our added added co2 fertilization.
No problem , its ‘will ‘ not ‘has’ which means they can always claim their right because ‘it could happen’ heads I win tails you lose . No science involved are indeed wanted .
“There is a shortage of evidence, a draft version claims.”
There always will be, when there is none.
Objection your honor! I will need to see the peer reviewed evidence that shows this role. Probably chytrid disease Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis for the amphibians.
When people are allowed to classify some small remote population…with one feather out of place….as a new species